Cost-Related Underuse of Medicines for Asthma-Opportunities for Improving Adherence.

BACKGROUND: In asthma, underuse of cost-effective preventive treatments increases morbidity and mortality. The cost of medicines contributes to underuse ("nonadherence"), but the extent to which people with asthma skip or reduce doses or let prescriptions go unfilled when faced with cost pressures is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the extent of cost-related underuse behaviors and associated factors. METHODS: Using previously validated summary indicators, we conducted an online cross-sectional survey of adults and parents of children 5 to 17 years with asthma in Australia (a high-income country) and developed logistic regression models for adults and children with asthma, controlling for key clinical and demographic factors. RESULTS: The survey was completed by n = 792 adults (mean age, 47 [standard deviation, 17] years, male 47%, concession 60%) and n = 609 parents of children (5-10 years 51%, male 60%, concession 59%) with asthma. Cost-related underuse was reported by 52.9% adults and 34.3% parents, predominantly decreasing or skipping doses to make medicines last longer. Higher odds of cost-related underuse were observed with younger adults (adults: odds ratio [OR]: 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12, 1.27), males (adults: OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.08), having concerns about medicines (adults: OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.17, 4.35; parents: OR: 2.63; 95% CI: 1.56, 4.55), less comfortable talking to prescribers about cost (parents: OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.33) or changing medicines (adults: OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.22), feeling less engaged with prescribers about medicine decisions (parents: OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.23), and with poorer asthma control (adults, poor control: OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.13, 3.09; parents, poor control: OR: 3.87; 95% CI: 1.99, 7.54), and requiring specialist (parents: OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.87) or urgent health care visits (adults: OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.23). Income and concession card status were not associated with cost-related underuse. CONCLUSIONS: Adults and parents of children with asthma indicate high rates of cost-related underuse of asthma medicines, even in the context of national medicines subsidies. Urgent targeting of interventions to promote discussion of medicines and costs between doctor and patients, particularly young adult males, is needed.

Does a Patient-Directed Financial Incentive Affect Patient Choices About Controller Medicines for Asthma? A Discrete Choice Experiment and Financial Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, many patients who are initiated on asthma controller inhalers receive combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) despite having asthma of sufficiently low severity that ICS-alone would be equally effective and less costly for the government. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a nationally representative sample of adults (n = 792) and parents of children (n = 609) with asthma. Mixed multinomial models were estimated and calibrated to reflect the estimated market shares of ICS-alone, ICS/LABA and no controller. We then simulated the impact of varying patient co-payment on demand and the financial impact on government pharmaceutical expenditure. RESULTS: Preference for inhaler decreased with increasing costs to the patient or government, increasing chance of a repeat visit to the doctor, and if fewer symptoms were present. Adults preferred high-strength controllers, but parents preferred low-strength inhalers for children (general beneficiaries only). The DCE predicted a higher proportion choosing controller treatment (89%) compared to current levels (57%) at the current co-payment level, with proportionately higher uptake of ICS-alone and a lower average cost per patient [32.73 Australian dollars (AU$) c.f. AU$38.54]. Reducing the co-payment on ICS-alone by 50% would increase its market share to 50%, whilst completely removing the co-payment would only have a small marginal impact on market share, but increased average cost of treatment to the government to AU$41.04 per person. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-directed financial incentives are unlikely to encourage much switching of medicines, and current levels of under-treatment are not explained by patient preferences. Interventions directed at prescribers are more likely to promote better use of asthma medicines.

General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines: a qualitative study.

Objective Out-of-pocket costs strongly affect patient adherence with medicines. For asthma, guidelines recommend that most patients should be prescribed regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, but in Australia most are prescribed combination ICS-long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA), which cost more to patients and government. The present qualitative study among general practitioners (GPs) explored the acceptability, and likely effect on prescribing, of lower patient copayments for ICS alone. Methods Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 GPs from the greater Sydney area; the interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results GPs reported that their main criteria for selecting medicines were appropriateness and effectiveness. They did not usually discuss costs with patients, had low awareness of out-of-pocket costs and considered that these were seldom prohibitive for asthma patients. GPs strongly believed that patient care should not be compromised to reduce cost to government. They favoured ICS-LABA combinations over ICS alone because they perceived that ICS-LABA combinations enhanced adherence and reduced costs for patients. GPs did not consider that lower patient copayments for ICS alone would affect their prescribing. Conclusion The results suggest that financial incentives, such as lower patient copayments, would be unlikely to encourage GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone, unless accompanied by other strategies, including evidence for clinical effectiveness. GPs should be encouraged to discuss cost barriers to treatment with patients when considering treatment choices. What is known about the topic? Australian guidelines recommend that most patients with asthma should be treated with low-dose ICS alone to minimise symptom burden and risk of flare ups. However, most patients in Australian general practice are instead prescribed combination ICS-LABA preventers, which are indicated if asthma remains uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS alone. It is not known whether GPs are aware that the combination preventers have a higher patient copayment and a higher cost to government. What does this paper add? This qualitative study found that GPs favoured combination ICS-LABA inhalers over ICS alone because they perceived ICS-LABA combinations to have greater effectiveness and promote patient adherence. This aligned with GPs' views that their primary responsibility was patient care rather than generating cost savings for government. However, it emerged that GPs rarely discussed medicine costs with patients, had low knowledge of medicine costs to patients and the health system and reported that patients rarely volunteered cost concerns. GPs believed that lower patient copayments for asthma preventer medicines would have little effect on their prescribing practices. What are the implications for practitioners? This study suggests that, when considering asthma treatment choices, GPs should empathically explore with the patient whether cost-related medication underuse is an issue, and should be aware of the option of lower out-of-pocket costs with guideline-recommended ICS alone treatment. Policy makers must be aware that differential patient copayments for ICS preventer medicines are unlikely to act as an incentive for GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone preventers, unless the position of these preventers in guidelines and evidence for their clinical effectiveness are also reiterated.

Adequacy of US Hospital Security Preparedness for Mass Casualty Incidents: Critical Lessons From the Israeli Experience.

CONTEXT: Due to Israel's threat environment, Israeli hospitals have developed effective and innovative security preparations for responding to all-hazards incidents. Although Israeli hospital preparedness has been the subject of international praise and attention, there has been a dearth of research focused specifically on applying Israeli hospital security measures to the US hospital setting to augment emergency planning. OBJECTIVE: This study examined practical and cost-effective lessons from the Israeli experience for improving US hospital security preparedness for a wide range of mass casualty incidents, both natural and man-made. DESIGN: Sixty semi-structured interviews were conducted with officials throughout Israel's and America's health, defense, and emergency response communities. Hospital preparedness was examined and disaster drills were evaluated in both countries, with San Francisco hospitals analyzed as a case study. Qualitative analysis was conducted and recommendations were made on the basis of an all-hazards approach to emergency preparedness. RESULTS: US hospitals examined in this study had not undertaken crucial preparations for managing the security consequences of a large-scale disaster. Recommendations from Israel included installing permanent emergency signage, improving security perimeter protocols and training, increasing defense against primary and secondary attacks, enhancing coordination with law enforcement, the National Guard, and other outside security agencies, and conducting more frequent and realistic lockdown exercises. CONCLUSIONS: A number of US hospitals have overlooked the important role of security in emergency preparedness. This study analyzed practical and cost-effective security recommendations from Israel to remedy this dangerous deficiency in some US hospitals' disaster planning.